|
But ourselves- how does it touch us?
We may recall what we have said of the nature of the light
shining from it into Intellectual-Principle and so by
participation into the soul. But for the moment let us leave that
aside and put another question:
Does The Good hold that nature and name because some outside
thing finds it desirable? May we put it that a thing desirable to
one is good to that one and that what is desirable to all is to
be recognised as The Good?
No doubt this universal questing would make the goodness evident
but still there must be in the nature something to earn that
name.
Further, is the questing determined by the hope of some
acquisition or by sheer delight? If there is acquisition, what is
it? If it is a matter of delight, why here rather than in
something else?
The question comes to this: Is goodness in the appropriate or in
something apart, and is The Good good as regards itself also or
good only as possessed?
Any good is such, necessarily, not for itself but for something
outside.
But to what nature is This good? There is a nature to which
nothing is good.
And we must not overlook what some surly critic will surely bring
up against us:
What's all this: you scatter praises here, there and everywhere:
Life is good, Intellectual-Principle is good: and yet The Good is
above them; how then can Intellectual-Principle itself be good?
Or what do we gain by seeing the Ideas themselves if we see only
a particular Idea and nothing else [nothing "substantial"]? If we
are happy here we may be deceived into thinking life a good when
it is merely pleasant; but suppose our lot unhappy, why should we
speak of good? Is mere personal existence good? What profit is
there in it? What is the advantage in existence over utter
non-existence- unless goodness is to be founded upon our love of
self? It is the deception rooted in the nature of things and our
dread of dissolution that lead to all the "goods" of your
positing.
|
|